Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[suse]

Er, Lightsabre, that post was mine.

[QUOTE]

It's very simple. If you are the highest ranked officer, you are expected to lead.
Therefore any officer is expected to be a leader. This does not mean they are THE leader.
Captain Carter is expected to be able to lead as much as LT Col Carter.

So a shift leader at McDonalds is expected to run the franchise?

Carter didn't have the training or experience at the time. And Jack was there so she wasn't leading. If Jack had been killed, she would lead. But she could and did contrubute and make her voice heard. Just not in combat situations when there is no time to debate.

Yup. In sentencing or punishment, this would be valid. However, this is NOT what was advanced.
We were talking of leadership and the argument was that as Mitchell disobeyed a direct order, he shouldn't lead.
THIS ARGUMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RANK and neither did my counter argument.
The argument was simply disobedient people should not command.

Did I mention anything about sentencing or punishment? It is a standard of conduct. With sentencing in place if you violate that standard.

This is where we disagree. This has everything to do with rank and the fact that as a (if not the) leader you have more of a responsibility to obey rules so you set a good example.. Having a higher rank does not give you the right to go off half-cocked against a direct order.

I don't think we will ever agree about this.

His tallies with mine.

No, it doesn't.

And Carter's disobedience a disservice to hers.

I can see how you see this. She is very lucky she had an understanding - if snarky - CO. This does not negate the fact none of her disobediences were in battle situations. Only she was at risk. And all your refereces are eight yearsd old. The character has grown.

And she has saved the world - literally - what, 8 times? To Mitchell's one. She learned from the best how to lead in these situations. Why isn't she is the bottom line. ::coughcough::

Suse

[the dancer of spaz]

You mean like messing with the dialing computer and nearly blowing up a world?

Sure. This is a risk that comes with working with the Stargate. And it was an action that General Hammond was aware of before she did it.

Like Sam going off for a D&M with Martouf while the rest of the team are prisioners of the Tok'ra.

D&M?

Or, like I said, going into a locked silo with a child who may explode with more force than a nuclear bomb?

It was impossible for anyone to follow her, and it wasn't in combat.

How are these unfeasible?
I state again, Sam in S1 is at the same level of Gate experience as Cam in S9.

If I were in the mood to beat a dead horse, I would. But there are only so many times a subject can be discussed.

Did I have a photographic memory and recall, yes it would. However, I need to find the episodes and then watch/read them. That takes a lot of time that quite franky, I could spend doing other things, like spending time with my girlfriend.

See this is what gets me. TPTB have told us he can lead. Several of the 'mistakes' you allude to above have mitigating factors you don't accept.
That's fine, but that standard of judgement applied to SG-1 would mean very bad things for the team.

What are the mitigating factors? The only one that stands to reason is the fact that Cameron was emotional during Stronghold. There are no other mitigating factors.

And that standard of judgment has applied to SG-1 in the past. Jack had to work while dealing with an alien who posed as himself and his dead son, and with the knowledge that he soon wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone during his last few days alive. Daniel had to work through his loss of Sha're, and then of her son, and through knowing that there were so many things that he'd forgotten from his ascension, that there were moments when he wasn't able to help his friends out like he would've liked. Sam had to work while dealing with her father's life hanging in the balance (2+ times), and knowing that her biology was forever changed against her will because of her blending with Jolinar. Teal'c had to work though he knew that he was leaving his young son behind to a life of slavery, entrusting his life to a good friend, but essentially giving up the opportunity to father his son during his most formative years.

Every single one of the main characters has lost someone - MORE than one person, actually. For Jack, Daniel, Sam and Teal'c, there is a huge list of people they've lost over the years. The standard applies to them, because they still needed to keep their cool under pressure, despite what was going on around them.

Cameron hasn't been exposed to what SG-1 has been, and it's understandable that everything would be extremely new to him. But there've been too many moments when Cameron's "leadership" has only served as a plot device through which the writers have advanced the story from Point A to Point B, while the other more experienced characters actually contribute to the problem-solving. He's the newbie, and he should've been treated as such from the beginning.

If they weren't dealing with a co-command scenario, Cam would be a clearer leader.

I don't agree with that, But I was very sick of Vala by ep 6. I was glad when she disappeared and I LIKE her.

Funny, they could've established it in any of those episodes. Those were the moments when they could've developed their much-hyped new character, but they didn't. They decided to go with what was "easy" and what was "fun," and as a result, we're left with this mess of a character, who really could serve a purpose on this team if written correctly, but doesn't.

No, it's comparing a subordinate(Capn Carter) to a subordinate(Lt Col Mitchell).

... Cameron, as far as we know, was only a "subordinate" for that mission. Assuming the co-command structure is really in place, he wouldn't have been her subordinate at any other time - they are equals throughout the rest of the season. Carter wasn't just a subordinate for one mission, she was a subordinate for seven years. There is no comparing a junior officer to a senior officer, unless you think the senior officer should NOT be held accountable for their actions AS a senior officer.

As I said, your duty to obey neither grows nor diminishes with Rank.

Evidently, in Cameron's case, it does.

[suse]

[QUOTE]

Nope.
He zats a couple of jaffa with one shot(that's how they get behind him). If he was out for blood, he'd use two and kill them.
He's basically getting to the ship as fast as he can. No one would be faulting his actions if Sam hadn't yelled 'Wait for backup'

But she did - and he didn't. And you can be out for blood kicking one of those gym bags too. Doen't mean you kill it. It's still an adrenelin rush.

I really dislike this ep.

We have agreed on something!!! Let the party begin!

Suse

[Deevil]

And she has saved the world - literally - what, 8 times? To Mitchell's one. She learned from the best how to lead in these situations. Why isn't she is the bottom line. ::coughcough::

Suse

But, how does that defend Mitchell's actions?

Ohh wait, it doesn't...

moving on

[Lightsabre]

Sure. This is a risk that comes with working with the Stargate. And it was an action that General Hammond was aware of before she did it.

And occasionally letting loose a genocidal freak on the universe is as well.
I direct your attention Linea. SG-1 let her loose on the galaxy. They weren't condemned.
Was Hammond aware of it? All Carter says at teh beginning of the ep is they had to tweak the dialling computer.
I don't remember dialouge where Hammond authorises her to do it.

D&M?

Deep and Meaningful

It was impossible for anyone to follow her, and it wasn't in combat.

SO? She was given a direct order. SHe acted emotionally and disobeyed her CO.

If I were in the mood to beat a dead horse, I would. But there are only so many times a subject can be discussed.

I really wish people would let it lie, but as long you guys keep bringing it up, I have to defend it.

What are the mitigating factors? The only one that stands to reason is the fact that Cameron was emotional during Stronghold. There are no other mitigating factors.

I posted on this already. Read that one.

And that standard of judgment has applied to SG-1 in the past. Jack had to work while dealing with an alien who posed as himself and his dead son, and with the knowledge that he soon wouldn't be able to communicate with anyone during his last few days alive. Daniel had to work through his loss of Sha're, and then of her son, and through knowing that there were so many things that he'd forgotten from his ascension, that there were moments when he wasn't able to help his friends out like he would've liked. Sam had to work while dealing with her father's life hanging in the balance (2+ times), and knowing that her biology was forever changed against her will because of her blending with Jolinar. Teal'c had to work though he knew that he was leaving his young son behind to a life of slavery, entrusting his life to a good friend, but essentially giving up the opportunity to father his son during his most formative years.

And they made emotive mistakes.
the one that most springs to mind is Teal'c shooting down the evil guy's alkesh and strading him and O'Neill.

Every single one of the main characters has lost someone - MORE than one person, actually. For Jack, Daniel, Sam and Teal'c, there is a huge list of people they've lost over the years. The standard applies to them, because they still needed to keep their cool under pressure, despite what was going on around them.

Sometimes, not others.
[QUOTE=the dancer of spaz]
Cameron hasn't been exposed to what SG-1 has been, and it's understandable that everything would be extremely new to him. But there've been too many moments when Cameron's "leadership" has only served as a plot device through which the writers have advanced the story from Point A to Point B, while the other more experienced characters actually contribute to the problem-solving. He's the newbie, and he should've been treated as such from the beginning.
[/quote[
what was that about dead horses?

Funny, they could've established it in any of those episodes. Those were the moments when they could've developed their much-hyped new character, but they didn't. They decided to go with what was "easy" and what was "fun," and as a result, we're left with this mess of a character, who really could serve a purpose on this team if written correctly, but doesn't.

Again, I agree

... Cameron, as far as we know, was only a "subordinate" for that mission. Assuming the co-command structure is really in place, he wouldn't have been her subordinate at any other time - they are equals throughout the rest of the season. Carter wasn't just a subordinate for one mission, she was a subordinate for seven years. There is no comparing a junior officer to a senior officer, unless you think the senior officer should NOT be held accountable for their actions AS a senior officer.

Yes and I am comparing taht instance with istances where Carter was a subordinate.
It's quite clear what my argument was.
I'm not saying Carter's actions exonerate Mitchell, I'm saying that if Mitchell shouldn't lead because of it, neither should Carter.

Evidently, in Cameron's case, it does.

HUH?

[the dancer of spaz]

But, how does that defend Mitchell's actions?

Ohh wait, it doesn't...

moving on

Mitchell's actions are defended by default because he's the guy (though, ha, they conveniently forgot that they had TWO guys in Shanks' Daniel and Judge's Teal'c - whatever), and Sci Fi has (mistakenly) banked on their Golden Boy and his astounding leadership and experience to bring in the ratings they were so desperately worried about in the first place.

This has nothing to do with Ben Browder either; the network just evidently has a deep-rooted desire to maintain the status quo. That's why we've got a new sex kitten instead of what could be an extremely complex character. Whatever. Their show, their rights. I just hope they don't expect the members of other demographics to just go along with it. That'd be foolish.

[Lightsabre]

But, how does that defend Mitchell's actions?

Ohh wait, it doesn't...

moving on

I really wish you would.

[Andrew Joshua Talon]

Carter is of course a good leader, but with the Ori, I think her skills are best served as being the scientist and advisor, rather than the leader. Mitchell's enthusiasm, bravery, and experience, tempered with Sam's brains and knowledge, could be unbeatable.

[Deevil]

Mitchell's actions are defended by default because he's the guy (though, ha, they conveniently forgot that they had TWO guys in Shanks' Daniel and Judge's Teal'c - whatever), and Sci Fi has (mistakenly) banked on their Golden Boy and his astounding leadership and experience to bring in the ratings they were so desperately worried about in the first place.

This has nothing to do with Ben Browder either; the network just evidently has a deep-rooted desire to maintain the status quo. That's why we've got a new sex kitten instead of what could be an extremely complex character. Whatever. Their show, their rights. I just hope they don't expect the members of other demographics to just go along with it. That'd be foolish.

So translation - it doesn't really defend Mitchell. Although is it odd I find some fault in Mitchell and love him because of it?

I really wish you would.

Nope, free forum... I can post here as long as I like. Time to accept that. And since I haven't broken any rules, all is fine for me to do so.

[Lightsabre]

Er, Lightsabre, that post was mine.

Sorry, if I put Deevil's name in there, I thought I'd replaced them all.

So a shift leader at McDonalds is expected to run the franchise?

McDonald's is NOT the military.

Carter didn't have the training or experience at the time. And Jack was there so she wasn't leading. If Jack had been killed, she would lead. But she could and did contrubute and make her voice heard. Just not in combat situations when there is no time to debate.

Umm, yes she did. In 'Spirits'(S3 admittadly), she commands and she's only a captain.
This tells me that captains CAN command SG teams.

Did I mention anything about sentencing or punishment? It is a standard of conduct. With sentencing in place if you violate that standard.

My point was this is only relevant AT sentencing. It does NOT effect the offence committed.

This is where we disagree. This has everything to do with rank and the fact that as a (if not the) leader you have more of a responsibility to obey rules so you set a good example..

You have more of a responsibility to set an example. NOT to obey.
THAT is what I was saying.

Having a higher rank does not give you the right to go off half-cocked against a direct order.

I never said that.

I don't think we will ever agree about this.

Fair enough

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does

I can see how you see this. She is very lucky she had an understanding - if snarky - CO. This does not negate the fact none of her disobediences were in battle situations. Only she was at risk. And all your refereces are eight yearsd old. The character has grown.

Character growth and time from offence do not matter. She committed the offence and you are right, seh was lucky her CO let it slide.
Battle situations also do not matter.
Mitchell disobeyed, Carter disobeyed.
It's that simple.

And she has saved the world - literally - what, 8 times? To Mitchell's one. She learned from the best how to lead in these situations. Why isn't she is the bottom line. ::coughcough::

Suse

This is irrelevant. Mitchell saved Teal'c, but you won't let him off.

[Lightsabre]

Nope, free forum... I can post here as long as I like. Time to accept that. And since I haven't broken any rules, all is fine for me to do so.

I've accepted you will never let the issue go.
I've never told you to stop posting OR leave the forums.
Sensitive much?

[SG1Poz]

Carter is of course a good leader, but with the Ori, I think her skills are best served as being the scientist and advisor, rather than the leader. Mitchell's enthusiasm, bravery, and experience, tempered with Sam's brains and knowledge, could be unbeatable.

What experience? Bravery? If you want to call acting without thinking bravery then sure, why not? But some may consider that stupidity. I'll give him an A+ for enthusiasm.

[Deevil]

This is irrelevant. Mitchell saved Teal'c, but you won't let him off.

We don't have to let him off. Battle situations do matter, the fact that when bullets are flying and people are potentially dying does factor.

You know, if it were in like the second WW Mitchell would have been shot for desertion, because despite his intentions he deserted his post. You cannot talk around that, and you cannot compare that to actions of a capt. under different circumstances.

[Lightsabre]

Lightsabre - I could explain to you what H20 means and you still would find fault in it. Because your argument would be about water... not H20

Whatever.

We, meaning me and many others have explained to you on more then one occasion why rank matters - you disregard it because it doesn't fit in your pretty little arguement. You don't want a debate, you want someone to say you are right. Guess what, it's not happening.

I'd LOVE a debate. However, for a debate, you actaully need to advance an argument. YOu just pick mine apart and then claim 'I never said that' when I explain what it's countering.
It's much easier to just sit and pick holes, rather than advance something of your own.
I posted a little while ago on the circumstances taht seem to mitigate insubordination and why they applied to Mitchell.
Haven't see you reply to that. You seem to not be able to move on from the rank issue.
The problem is you refuse to accept my point of view. I accept yours, however, it simply does not fit the argument.

I have (and others) on more then one occasion stated our arguement while rebutting yours.

500 years ago, people thought the earth was flat too.
Numbers aren't everything.

It's what happens in a debate.

Yup, you know what else happens in a debate? The other side advances an argument.
ALL you do is rebutt.

You are not a victim, you are someone who is here on the guise of a discussion, but in the end just require validation.

Yeah that's it.
My mommy doesn't love me, so I hang out here looking for love.

Mitchell is not fit for the command of SG-1. He said himself in Stronghold that he's a hot-head and acts rashly. Well he done it again, lucky for him no one has been killed or injured (on SG-1 or at the SGC) but i don't think that track record is going to last for long; but then again I believe that this is intentional.

I'm gonna rebut this.
Jack was hot headed at times. He was also incredibely undiplomatic.
He led.

How about, I let you argue with yourself, and I sit here and watch you talk circles around your own points. This will be for my own entertainment, and possibly others too.

How about, if you dont' like my argument, you ignore it.
Or is that too mature for you?

[the dancer of spaz]

And occasionally letting loose a genocidal freak on the universe is as well.
I direct your attention Linea. SG-1 let her loose on the galaxy. They weren't condemned.
Was Hammond aware of it? All Carter says at teh beginning of the ep is they had to tweak the dialling computer.
I don't remember dialouge where Hammond authorises her to do it.

Deep and Meaningful

SO? She was given a direct order. SHe acted emotionally and disobeyed her CO.

I really wish people would let it lie, but as long you guys keep bringing it up, I have to defend it.

And they made emotive mistakes.
the one that most springs to mind is Teal'c shooting down the evil guy's alkesh and strading him and O'Neill.

I understand these are mistakes that SG-1 has made. Jack's made 'em, Daniel's made 'em, and Sam and Teal'c have made them too. But it still stands to reason that these mistakes weren't all there was about them, and that they positively contributed to the team on a regular basis for eight years.

This is Cameron's first year. I understand that. But the fact remains that you'd be hard-pressed to find an episode post-EDM where fans have not criticized Cameron's behavior. And they're consistently criticizing him for his fratboy-kid in a candy store behavior. It's widespread.

Even fans who hate (and I mean hate) Carter, think that Cameron's severely lacking, so it's not just crazy Carter fans who have issues with him. There's a lot to be said when anti-Sam fans/Sam fans/general team fans agree on one thing. It's so rare, that you can't help but notice it when it happens.

I posted on this already. Read that one.

You have a habit of posting every other minute. Humor me.

what was that about dead horses?

Hey, they ask to be beaten, I say.

Yes and I am comparing taht instance with istances where Carter was a subordinate.
It's quite clear what my argument was.
I'm not saying Carter's actions exonerate Mitchell, I'm saying that if Mitchell shouldn't lead because of it, neither should Carter.

Mitchell makes the mistake as a "co-leader," Carter makes the mistake as a junior officer. No correlation. Dead horse, dead horse, dead horse.

HUH?

Despite all of Cameron's glorious leadership skills, he demands respect and obedience, yet - as an example to other junior officers at the SGC - he is incapable of following a direct order in heavy combat.

In his case, the ability to follow orders has diminished with his rank. Or he's just so dang sure of himself as the leader of SG-1, that he's convinced he doesn't need to follow conventional wisdom.